Who Are The Palestinians?

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you misunderstand the application.

But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (with the indigenous Arab population), and a War of Independence (with the adjacent Arab States). The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian. And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.
​

​

It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.

(COMMENT)

The international restriction on the acquisition of territory by the use of force, does not apply to domestic and internal conflicts (civil wars). The establishment of the Jewish State pursuant to the UN Steps Preparatory to Independence is not a use of force. The intervention of the Arab States is an act of aggression and considered a form of "external interference" in the domestic affairs.

Consider:

The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war.
Lashing Back - Israel’s 1947-1948 Civil War
UN Partition Plan Facilitates Civil War
​

The idea that "the war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948, following a period of civil war in 1947–1948" is not an isolated thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is almost too simple.

BTW, you have never explained how foreigners get the right to self determination in another country.

(COMMENT)

The right to self determination is universal. It applies equally to every group.

The establishment of the Jewish State of Israel was predicated on General Assembly authorization in the execution of the Steps Preparatory to Independence. The same authority that wrote the principles of self-determination established the authority for Israeli to exercise its self-determination and this same authority recognized the establishment of the state.

The Israelis were considered citizens of the Territory under Mandate. They were not considered foreigners in another country.

The UN recognized the right of self-determination, set the Steps Preparatory to Independence, and helped coordinate the announcement. It ultimately decided to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is almost too simple.

BTW, you have never explained how foreigners get the right to self determination in another country.

(COMMENT)

The right to self determination is universal. It applies equally to every group.

The establishment of the Jewish State of Israel was predicated on General Assembly authorization in the execution of the Steps Preparatory to Independence. The same authority that wrote the principles of self-determination established the authority for Israeli to exercise its self-determination and this same authority recognized the establishment of the state.

The Israelis were considered citizens of the Territory under Mandate. They were not considered foreigners in another country.

The UN recognized the right of self-determination, set the Steps Preparatory to Independence, and helped coordinate the announcement. It ultimately decided to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.

Most Respectfully,
R

"The right to self determination is universal. It applies equally to every group."

But not at the expense of another group. Too simple.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you misunderstand the application.

But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (with the indigenous Arab population), and a War of Independence (with the adjacent Arab States). The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian. And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.
​

​

It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.

(COMMENT)

The international restriction on the acquisition of territory by the use of force, does not apply to domestic and internal conflicts (civil wars). The establishment of the Jewish State pursuant to the UN Steps Preparatory to Independence is not a use of force. The intervention of the Arab States is an act of aggression and considered a form of "external interference" in the domestic affairs.

Consider:

The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war.
Lashing Back - Israel’s 1947-1948 Civil War
UN Partition Plan Facilitates Civil War
​

The idea that "the war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948, following a period of civil war in 1947–1948" is not an isolated thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

Fighting between the natives and foreign colonial settlers is not a civil war no matter how many times the liars say it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is almost too simple.

BTW, you have never explained how foreigners get the right to self determination in another country.

(COMMENT)

The right to self determination is universal. It applies equally to every group.

The establishment of the Jewish State of Israel was predicated on General Assembly authorization in the execution of the Steps Preparatory to Independence. The same authority that wrote the principles of self-determination established the authority for Israeli to exercise its self-determination and this same authority recognized the establishment of the state.

The Israelis were considered citizens of the Territory under Mandate. They were not considered foreigners in another country.

The UN recognized the right of self-determination, set the Steps Preparatory to Independence, and helped coordinate the announcement. It ultimately decided to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.

Most Respectfully,
R

So the French have the self determination right to set up camp in Britain?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

This presumption results in a principle of prima facie equal distribution for all distributable goods. A strict principle of equal distribution is not required, but it is morally necessary to justify impartially any unequal distribution. The burden of proof lies on the side of those who favor any form of unequal distribution.

Reaffirms that the universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to
self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such
rights; SOURCE: General Assembly Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination​

However, it is not correct to suggest that that the "right of self-determination" automatically implies "not at the expense of another group." That is a moral necessity, not articulated. The mandate to establish a Jewish National Home was a variation on the concept of "affirmative action" for a minority group.

"The right to self determination is universal. It applies equally to every group."

But not at the expense of another group. Too simple.

(COMMENT)

"Not at the expense of another group" is NOT represented in the stipulation of the Mandate. The Mandate says: "being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights." These are restricted limitations --- specifically articulated and targeted --- as they were understood in 1922:

• Civil Rights: In 1922, civil rights varied between countries. Laws on discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin had not been written yet. While the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) would not be written for another four decades (1966); and would not enter into force for another decade (1976); 1922 was the year the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH).
• Religious Rights: Which pertains to the freedom of religion or belief and to the rights of religious minorities.

Other forms of rights had not yet been set to paper.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The immigration and steps preparatory to independence were specifically established by the Allied Powers and League of Nations to apply affirmative action in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.

So the French have the self determination right to set up camp in Britain?

(COMMENT)

If the French had a similar mandate in their favor for the UK (by the Allied Powers and United Nations) and were able to successful defend their right to self-determination in a War for Independence, then yes. But it is unlikely that the French will ever be evicted from France and forced to establish a new home -- a French National Home.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, good observation.

You are connecting rights to 1988 when that is past the time stated in UN resolutions.

(COMMENT)

There are a couple reasons for that.

1. Prior to 1988, and after 1950, the Palestinian People exercised their right of self-determination:

• On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.

• In General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), entitled “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”, which reflects customary international law (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, pp. 101-103, paras. 191-193), the General Assembly reiterated “[t]he principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State”. This resolution then enumerated various obligations incumbent upon States to refrain from violating the territorial integrity of other sovereign States. In the same vein, the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe of 1 August 1975 (the Helsinki Conference) stipulated that “[t]he participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating States” (Art. IV). Thus, the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States. The Palestinians did not declare independence as a "state" until 1988.

• Prior to 1974, there was no common voice speaking with legal competence and authority for the Palestinian People.

2. The 1996 General Assembly Resolution 50/172. Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes --- mention the Palestinians only once:

• Reaffirming also, in this context, the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

It is the 1997 General Assembly Resolution 51/190. Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources... which speaks directly to the Palestinian situation. And it is guided by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, affirming the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and recalling Security Council resolutions, including:

UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 (sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence)
√ At the time of this Resolution, Israel was the Occupying Power over Jordanian Sovereign territory.
UN Security Council Resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, (Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention)
√ At the time and still today, the Palestinian Jihadist and Fedayeen argue the validity of the Geneva Convention, as it contains penalties for attacks on the Occupation Power.
√ There is an argument to be made that Israel does not Occupy the Gaza Strip, or Areas "A" and "B" - West Bank, by the definition of Article 42 of the Hague Convention.
UN Security Council Resolutions 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980,
√ Deeply concerned over the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlement policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem,
UN Security Council Resolutions 497 (1981) of 17 December 1981,
√ Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void.

No representative of the Palestinian People had made a bid, on behalf of the Palestinian People, for Independence and Sovereignty through the right of self-determination without external influence prior to 1988. And only UNSC Resolution 242, speaks to "sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" issues --- but does not specifically apply them to the Arab Palestinian.

I am not sure which particular Resolution you had in mind when you say: "is past the time stated in UN resolutions." But even UNSC 242 does not specifically grant the Palestinians any special recognition. The Palestinians are not mentioned once.

Most Respectfully,
R

"No representative of the Palestinian People had made a bid, on behalf of the Palestinian People, for Independence and Sovereignty through the right of self-determination without external influence prior to 1988."

As usual, Rocco, you either don't know what you are talking about, or you are a pathological liar.

[Cmd. 1700.]
PALESTINE.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB
DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.
​

No. 1.
The Palestine Arab Delegation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.


HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.
Sir,
We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.

• 
  
  We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.

We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—

• 
  
  (a) In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; the People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
  (b) In Articles 4-9 of the Order dealing with the manner of appointment of the High Commissioner and his powers, Palestine is considered as a colony of the lowest order, whereas according to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Palestine comes under Grade A, where "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."
  
  (c) The Executive, dealt with in Articles 10-16, is in no way responsible to the Legislative Council.

• 
  (d) Articles 17-28 dealing with the Legislative Council prescribe that this Council "shall consist of 25 members in addition to the High Commissioner"—"who shall exercise a casting vote, in case of an equality of votes." This brings the total number of votes to 27. Of these, 10 shall be official members holding office under the High Commissioner, and two members shall be nominated by him. Thus the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.

It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, i.e. a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone.
Article 22 gives the High Commissioner the power at any time to prorogue or dissolve the Council, without the provision that he must call a new Council within a stated time.

Article 23 gives the High Commissioner the right to veto any measure passed by the Council.

We further submit in this connection that it is not in keeping with the constitutional spirit to place the Head of the Executive at the head of the Legislative and to introduce into this latter, as members, officials of the State. This invariably leads to the Executive becoming arbitrary since it is placed in the position of accused and judge at the same time.

We also notice with astonishment that 10 members constitute a quorum. This is less than half the total number of Members, and makes it possible for the 10 official members to carry on the work of legislation should circumstances, for any reason whatever, prevent the other members from being present. In which case the power of the Legislative Council becomes a mere shadow and not a reality.

• 
  
  (e) By the provisions of Articles 33, 46 and 67, Palestine is considered as a Crown Colony, and the High Commissioner as the Governor of a Colony or British possession with the rights of confirming sentences of death, of deporting any person without trial and without allowing that person the right of appeal against the order for deportation.
  (f) The recognition of Hebrew as an official language of the State as in Article 80 is another proof of the desire to foster Zionist nationalism in Palestine, when only about 10 per cent, of the present Jewish inhabitants of the country speak that language. This innovation is wholly unwarranted and adds to the expenses of the State, which derives its main revenues from the Arab population.
  
  (g) The High Commissioner by Article 81 is given the power to obstruct any appeal to the League of Nations.
  
  (h) Lastly, we read in Article 83 that the High Commissioner may, after obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State, vary, annul or add to the provisions of this Order in Council. These powers of the High Commissioner render this Order in Council as if it had not been.

For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—

• 
  
  (1) Safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the People.
  (2) Provide for the creation of a national independent Government in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
  
  (3) Safeguard the legal rights of foreigners.
  
  (4) Guarantee religious equality to all peoples.
  
  (5) Guarantee the rights of minorities.
  
  (6) Guarantee the rights of the Assisting Power.

The Delegation is quite confident that the justice of the British Government and its sense of fair play will make it consider the above remarks with a sympathetic mind, since the Delegation's chief object is to lay in Palestine the foundation of a stable Government that would command the respect of the inhabitants and guarantee peace and prosperity to all.
The Delegation would request, in conclusion, that the Secretary of State would be good enough to communicate to them his views on their remarks and the next step to be taken in the matter.



We have, &c.,

for THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION,

MOUSSA KAZIM EL HUSSEINI, President.

SHIBLY JAMAL, Secretary.

- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922

As usual, Rocco, you either don't know what you are talking about, or you are a pathological liar.

This just proves what a massive piece of trash you are. Rocco only posts facts backed up with plenty of documents. Out of all the posters here, it's incredibly unusual that you would call Rocco a liar.
If you can't handle the truth, then you shouldn't be here...

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, well --- when all is said and done, this is a manifestation of the actual Arab-Palestinian and Israeli dispute.

Why do you call this a flawed quasi-bid for independence? It is considerably more legitimate than the foreigners declaring a state inside Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Whether we speak of the original complaint by the Arab Higher Committee, the view of the All-Palestine Government, or the political position of the various contemporary Arab Palestinian organizations that gave rise to the Jihadist and Fedayeen --- the:

Israeli position is that they established the State of Israeli by following the Steps Preparatory to Independence; and fully coordinated with the appropriate UN agencies.

The Arab Palestinian believe that the authority exercised by the Council to the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, and the successor organizations of the UN was and is --- invalid.

The Arab Palestinian believes that the entirety of the territory formerly under the authority of the Mandate for Palestine is Arab, and that Arab are the only entity that can legitimately exercise government control and sovereignty over the territory.
​

But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (with the indigenous Arab population), and a War of Independence (with the adjacent Arab States). The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian. And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.

Most Respectfully,
R

But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (with the indigenous Arab population), and a War of Independence (with the adjacent Arab States). The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian. And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.​

It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.

BTW, you have never explained how foreigners get the right to self determination in another country.

All he does is explain things to you.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Palestine Order in Council and the 1925 Citizenship Order established who were citizens and who were not. Relative to the interpretation "civil war" --- that a "war between citizens of the same country" is a Civil War.

Fighting between the natives and foreign colonial settlers is not a civil war no matter how many times the liars say it.

(COMMENT)

It is recognized that the Arab Palestinians are xenophobic; especially when considering the Jewish. Relative to

The General Assembly, by Resolution 52/111 of 12 December 1997, decided to convene a World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance no later than 2001.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you misunderstand the application.

But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (with the indigenous Arab population), and a War of Independence (with the adjacent Arab States). The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian. And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.
​

​

It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.

(COMMENT)

The international restriction on the acquisition of territory by the use of force, does not apply to domestic and internal conflicts (civil wars). The establishment of the Jewish State pursuant to the UN Steps Preparatory to Independence is not a use of force. The intervention of the Arab States is an act of aggression and considered a form of "external interference" in the domestic affairs.

Consider:

The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war.
Lashing Back - Israel’s 1947-1948 Civil War
UN Partition Plan Facilitates Civil War
​

The idea that "the war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948, following a period of civil war in 1947–1948" is not an isolated thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

Fighting between the natives and foreign colonial settlers is not a civil war no matter how many times the liars say it.

No matter how hard you try Tinmore , you cannot change history or change the rules. It absolutely was a civil war.

The belligerents were Jewish residents of Mandatory Palestine plus European Zionists vs. Arab residents of Mandatory Palestine plus Arab militas from surrounding countries.
Every article calls it a civil war. Unless you have proof of otherwise.


BTW, the word 'colonial' is part of the Palestinian propaganda campaign

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you misunderstand the application.

But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (with the indigenous Arab population), and a War of Independence (with the adjacent Arab States). The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian. And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.
​

​

It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.

(COMMENT)

The international restriction on the acquisition of territory by the use of force, does not apply to domestic and internal conflicts (civil wars). The establishment of the Jewish State pursuant to the UN Steps Preparatory to Independence is not a use of force. The intervention of the Arab States is an act of aggression and considered a form of "external interference" in the domestic affairs.

Consider:

The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war.
Lashing Back - Israel’s 1947-1948 Civil War
UN Partition Plan Facilitates Civil War
​

The idea that "the war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948, following a period of civil war in 1947–1948" is not an isolated thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

Fighting between the natives and foreign colonial settlers is not a civil war no matter how many times the liars say it.

No matter how hard you try Tinmore , you cannot change history or change the rules. It absolutely was a civil war.

The belligerents were Jewish residents of Mandatory Palestine plus European Zionists vs. Arab residents of Mandatory Palestine plus Arab militas from surrounding countries.
Every article calls it a civil war. Unless you have proof of otherwise.

BTW, the word 'colonial' is part of the Palestinian propaganda campaign​

When Churchill 1921 Colonial Secretary was, he demanded Meinertzhagen for the Middle East Department at (Palestine was not really a colony, so was under no formal jurisdiction of Churchill, but the creation of a Middle East Department was one of the power struggles, with which Churchill expanded its influence). His desk was right next to that of TE Lawrence. From this time a friendship with Harry-St. John Bridger Philby – British adviser to the late founder of Saudi Arabia, Ibn Saud and bird lovers as Meinertzhagen – which actually was considered a violent anti-Semite. Meinertzhagen was sort of a liaison officer of the War Department in the Colonial Office and was responsible for budget and logistics of the military government of Palestine. In June 1922, Churchill asked him to talk, because apparently information was passed from the Ministry of the Zionist colonial office in London. Meinertzhagen denied to have been the leak, but subsequently he was employed only with subordinate activities.

Richard Meinertzhagen World War II​

Hmmm, everyone says civil war.

Everyone says that:

The Arab countries attacked Israel. That is a lie.

The Arabs lost the 1948 war. That is a lie.

Salem Fayyad was the PM of Palestine. That is a lie.

Hamas took control of Gaza from the PA in 2007. That is a lie.

Why would I believe that foreign militias attacking Palestinian civilians be a "civil war?"

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

This presumption results in a principle of prima facie equal distribution for all distributable goods. A strict principle of equal distribution is not required, but it is morally necessary to justify impartially any unequal distribution. The burden of proof lies on the side of those who favor any form of unequal distribution.

Reaffirms that the universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to
self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such
rights; SOURCE: General Assembly Resolution 49/148. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination​

However, it is not correct to suggest that that the "right of self-determination" automatically implies "not at the expense of another group." That is a moral necessity, not articulated. The mandate to establish a Jewish National Home was a variation on the concept of "affirmative action" for a minority group.

"The right to self determination is universal. It applies equally to every group."

But not at the expense of another group. Too simple.

(COMMENT)

"Not at the expense of another group" is NOT represented in the stipulation of the Mandate. The Mandate says: "being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights." These are restricted limitations --- specifically articulated and targeted --- as they were understood in 1922:

• Civil Rights: In 1922, civil rights varied between countries. Laws on discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin had not been written yet. While the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) would not be written for another four decades (1966); and would not enter into force for another decade (1976); 1922 was the year the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH).
• Religious Rights: Which pertains to the freedom of religion or belief and to the rights of religious minorities.

Other forms of rights had not yet been set to paper.

Most Respectfully,
R

What are the purpose of rights when foreigners with guns can move in and take over the place?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you misunderstand the application.

But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (with the indigenous Arab population), and a War of Independence (with the adjacent Arab States). The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian. And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.
​

​

It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.

(COMMENT)

The international restriction on the acquisition of territory by the use of force, does not apply to domestic and internal conflicts (civil wars). The establishment of the Jewish State pursuant to the UN Steps Preparatory to Independence is not a use of force. The intervention of the Arab States is an act of aggression and considered a form of "external interference" in the domestic affairs.

Consider:

The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war.
Lashing Back - Israel’s 1947-1948 Civil War
UN Partition Plan Facilitates Civil War
​

The idea that "the war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948, following a period of civil war in 1947–1948" is not an isolated thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

Fighting between the natives and foreign colonial settlers is not a civil war no matter how many times the liars say it.

No matter how hard you try Tinmore , you cannot change history or change the rules. It absolutely was a civil war.

The belligerents were Jewish residents of Mandatory Palestine plus European Zionists vs. Arab residents of Mandatory Palestine plus Arab militas from surrounding countries.
Every article calls it a civil war. Unless you have proof of otherwise.

BTW, the word 'colonial' is part of the Palestinian propaganda campaign​

When Churchill 1921 Colonial Secretary was, he demanded Meinertzhagen for the Middle East Department at (Palestine was not really a colony, so was under no formal jurisdiction of Churchill, but the creation of a Middle East Department was one of the power struggles, with which Churchill expanded its influence). His desk was right next to that of TE Lawrence. From this time a friendship with Harry-St. John Bridger Philby – British adviser to the late founder of Saudi Arabia, Ibn Saud and bird lovers as Meinertzhagen – which actually was considered a violent anti-Semite. Meinertzhagen was sort of a liaison officer of the War Department in the Colonial Office and was responsible for budget and logistics of the military government of Palestine. In June 1922, Churchill asked him to talk, because apparently information was passed from the Ministry of the Zionist colonial office in London. Meinertzhagen denied to have been the leak, but subsequently he was employed only with subordinate activities.

Richard Meinertzhagen World War II​

Hmmm, everyone says civil war.

Everyone says that:

The Arab countries attacked Israel. That is a lie.

The Arabs lost the 1948 war. That is a lie.

Salem Fayyad was the PM of Palestine. That is a lie.

Hamas took control of Gaza from the PA in 2007. That is a lie.

Why would I believe that foreign militias attacking Palestinian civilians be a "civil war?"

You're full of shit and you're unable to handle the truth. THAT is the root of the problem here. I have read several encyclopedias about the civil war. So according to you, everyone is lying but you, PF Tinmore are correct.

And yes, the Arabs did attack Israel in 1948. Only a fool woukd argue otherwise. They attacked Israeli forces IN Israel, therefore they attacked Israel.
It's not my fault you cannot accept that Israrl exists and it's not my fault that you cannot accept all the facts that Rocco has been giving you all this time.
But you continue to try and debate issues that are not up for debate because the truth interferes with your agenda. Yet you never seem to have any evidence or links to back up your claims.

Just think about how stupid this statement is: 'Arab countries did not attack Israel in 1948'
Aside from the fact that I presented you with links that show otherwise, why would you say such a thing? Who did they attack then?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you misunderstand the application.

But the Israeli Government successfully fought both a limited Civil War (with the indigenous Arab population), and a War of Independence (with the adjacent Arab States). The successful defense of the right to self determination has never been accepted by the Arab Palestinian. And that is the basis of the continuing conflict between the Arab and Israeli.
​

​

It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.

(COMMENT)

The international restriction on the acquisition of territory by the use of force, does not apply to domestic and internal conflicts (civil wars). The establishment of the Jewish State pursuant to the UN Steps Preparatory to Independence is not a use of force. The intervention of the Arab States is an act of aggression and considered a form of "external interference" in the domestic affairs.

Consider:

The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war.
Lashing Back - Israel’s 1947-1948 Civil War
UN Partition Plan Facilitates Civil War
​

The idea that "the war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948, following a period of civil war in 1947–1948" is not an isolated thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

Fighting between the natives and foreign colonial settlers is not a civil war no matter how many times the liars say it.

No matter how hard you try Tinmore , you cannot change history or change the rules. It absolutely was a civil war.

The belligerents were Jewish residents of Mandatory Palestine plus European Zionists vs. Arab residents of Mandatory Palestine plus Arab militas from surrounding countries.
Every article calls it a civil war. Unless you have proof of otherwise.

BTW, the word 'colonial' is part of the Palestinian propaganda campaign​

When Churchill 1921 Colonial Secretary was, he demanded Meinertzhagen for the Middle East Department at (Palestine was not really a colony, so was under no formal jurisdiction of Churchill, but the creation of a Middle East Department was one of the power struggles, with which Churchill expanded its influence). His desk was right next to that of TE Lawrence. From this time a friendship with Harry-St. John Bridger Philby – British adviser to the late founder of Saudi Arabia, Ibn Saud and bird lovers as Meinertzhagen – which actually was considered a violent anti-Semite. Meinertzhagen was sort of a liaison officer of the War Department in the Colonial Office and was responsible for budget and logistics of the military government of Palestine. In June 1922, Churchill asked him to talk, because apparently information was passed from the Ministry of the Zionist colonial office in London. Meinertzhagen denied to have been the leak, but subsequently he was employed only with subordinate activities.

Richard Meinertzhagen World War II​

Hmmm, everyone says civil war.

Everyone says that:

The Arab countries attacked Israel. That is a lie.

The Arabs lost the 1948 war. That is a lie.

Salem Fayyad was the PM of Palestine. That is a lie.

Hamas took control of Gaza from the PA in 2007. That is a lie.

Why would I believe that foreign militias attacking Palestinian civilians be a "civil war?"

As for your last question. That's not what happened at all. Actually, it was Arabs who commenced the hostitlies. And I already proved to you that both sides consisted of RESIDENTS of Mandatory Palestine. Both sides had foreigners fighting with them, but nonetheless it was a civil war. You have no proof to refute that.

Foreign militias attacking Palestinian civilians... LOL
Your propaganda has no limits Tinmore.

 

[Mindful]

There is no Palestine. It was a geographical region not a country.

Tell that to our resident revisionists.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore,

The recognition of these right came gradually over time. There is no one specific date in which all of these rights became "obtained." It came over a period between 1919 and 1916; as previously stated in Posting #2467.

Perhaps you could answer these older questions before we proceed. That would add relevance to the current discussion.

At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?

(COMMENT)

You asked about four (4) discrete rights:

• self determination
• without external interference.
• independence and sovereignty
• territorial integrity

Relative to "without external interference:"

Came in 1919 with the concept on the Covenant that there is a difference between domestic disputes and international disputes; in which the international community should remain silent on disputes having domestic jurisdiction. Domestic jurisdiction is predicated on territorial integrity. Thus, doesn't apply to the State of Palestine until 1988. (See "territorial integrity" below and the ICJ note.​

Relative to "self-determination:"

Came with the 1945 and becomes internationally binding with the Charter; in a faceted concept: (Reenforced in 1974 as an inalienable right.)

• Right to choose freely its political, economic, social, and cultural systems.
• Right of a people to constitute itself in a state or otherwise freely determine the form of its association with an existing state.

Relative to "independence and sovereignty."

Came in 1974 when "self-determination" --- "without external interference" --- and "national independence and sovereignty" are linked together. Again not yet applicable to the State of Palestine until 1988.​

Relative to "territorial integrity:"

Comes in 1988: “The principle of territorial integrity is an important part of the international legal order and is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular in Article 2, paragraph 4”[1] (the prohibition of the use of force), as well as in other important texts, including those on self-determination. The concept includes the inviolability of the territory of the State, including territory under the effective control and possession of a State. The International Court has held that “the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States.”

SOURCE: International Court of Justice, Accordance with international law of the unilateral Declaration of Independence of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports (2010), para. 80 (page 437)...

While the concept is recognized in the UN Charter, the ICJ says: "Thus, the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States." So, this is not applicable to the Arab Palestinians until they declare independence as "The State of Palestine."​

Most Respectfully,
R

Your post conflicts with UN resolutions.

WRONG AGAIN as it is based around UN resolutions, which as you know are recommendations only and have no weight in law.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That is not what it means at all.

There is no Palestine. It was a geographical region not a country.

Who told you that? Israel?

The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​

(REMEMBER)

Press Release PAL/138 27 February 1948

"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.

"After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.

"Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.

Most Respectfully,
R

Perhaps you could answer these older questions before we proceed. That would add relevance to the current discussion.

At what time did the Palestinians obtain these rights?

Under what circumstances were these rights obtained?

P F Tinmore, et al,

In what way?

Your post conflicts with UN resolutions.

(COMMENT)

HOW?

v/r
R

You are connecting rights to 1988 when that is past the time stated in UN resolutions.

WRONG AGAIN as they did not meet with the criteria of the UN resolutions until they declared independence and agreed with the UN resolutions. Without this being in place the Palestinians did not exist as an entity in any UN resolution

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you misunderstand the application.

​

It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

A war with the "indigenous Arab population" is a civil war? That's nuts.

(COMMENT)

The international restriction on the acquisition of territory by the use of force, does not apply to domestic and internal conflicts (civil wars). The establishment of the Jewish State pursuant to the UN Steps Preparatory to Independence is not a use of force. The intervention of the Arab States is an act of aggression and considered a form of "external interference" in the domestic affairs.

Consider:

The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war.
Lashing Back - Israel’s 1947-1948 Civil War
UN Partition Plan Facilitates Civil War
​

The idea that "the war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948, following a period of civil war in 1947–1948" is not an isolated thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

Fighting between the natives and foreign colonial settlers is not a civil war no matter how many times the liars say it.

No matter how hard you try Tinmore , you cannot change history or change the rules. It absolutely was a civil war.

The belligerents were Jewish residents of Mandatory Palestine plus European Zionists vs. Arab residents of Mandatory Palestine plus Arab militas from surrounding countries.
Every article calls it a civil war. Unless you have proof of otherwise.

BTW, the word 'colonial' is part of the Palestinian propaganda campaign​

When Churchill 1921 Colonial Secretary was, he demanded Meinertzhagen for the Middle East Department at (Palestine was not really a colony, so was under no formal jurisdiction of Churchill, but the creation of a Middle East Department was one of the power struggles, with which Churchill expanded its influence). His desk was right next to that of TE Lawrence. From this time a friendship with Harry-St. John Bridger Philby – British adviser to the late founder of Saudi Arabia, Ibn Saud and bird lovers as Meinertzhagen – which actually was considered a violent anti-Semite. Meinertzhagen was sort of a liaison officer of the War Department in the Colonial Office and was responsible for budget and logistics of the military government of Palestine. In June 1922, Churchill asked him to talk, because apparently information was passed from the Ministry of the Zionist colonial office in London. Meinertzhagen denied to have been the leak, but subsequently he was employed only with subordinate activities.

Richard Meinertzhagen World War II​

Hmmm, everyone says civil war.

Everyone says that:

The Arab countries attacked Israel. That is a lie.

The Arabs lost the 1948 war. That is a lie.

Salem Fayyad was the PM of Palestine. That is a lie.

Hamas took control of Gaza from the PA in 2007. That is a lie.

Why would I believe that foreign militias attacking Palestinian civilians be a "civil war?"

As for your last question. That's not what happened at all. Actually, it was Arabs who commenced the hostitlies. And I already proved to you that both sides consisted of RESIDENTS of Mandatory Palestine. Both sides had foreigners fighting with them, but nonetheless it was a civil war. You have no proof to refute that.

Foreign militias attacking Palestinian civilians... LOL
Your propaganda has no limits Tinmore.

When it suits the islamonazi stooges the terms of the Mandate for Palestine are cast in stone, when it goes against their POV it does not exist. In this case the LoN mandate which entered into International law gives all the worlds Jews Palestinian citizenship making them indigenous to the area. To redress this balance after 1948 the UN gave the same rights to arab muslims in palestine

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, good observation.

You are connecting rights to 1988 when that is past the time stated in UN resolutions.

(COMMENT)

There are a couple reasons for that.

1. Prior to 1988, and after 1950, the Palestinian People exercised their right of self-determination:

• On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.

• In General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), entitled “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”, which reflects customary international law (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, pp. 101-103, paras. 191-193), the General Assembly reiterated “[t]he principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State”. This resolution then enumerated various obligations incumbent upon States to refrain from violating the territorial integrity of other sovereign States. In the same vein, the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe of 1 August 1975 (the Helsinki Conference) stipulated that “[t]he participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating States” (Art. IV). Thus, the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States. The Palestinians did not declare independence as a "state" until 1988.

• Prior to 1974, there was no common voice speaking with legal competence and authority for the Palestinian People.

2. The 1996 General Assembly Resolution 50/172. Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes --- mention the Palestinians only once:

• Reaffirming also, in this context, the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

It is the 1997 General Assembly Resolution 51/190. Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources... which speaks directly to the Palestinian situation. And it is guided by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, affirming the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and recalling Security Council resolutions, including:

UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 (sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence)
√ At the time of this Resolution, Israel was the Occupying Power over Jordanian Sovereign territory.
UN Security Council Resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, (Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention)
√ At the time and still today, the Palestinian Jihadist and Fedayeen argue the validity of the Geneva Convention, as it contains penalties for attacks on the Occupation Power.
√ There is an argument to be made that Israel does not Occupy the Gaza Strip, or Areas "A" and "B" - West Bank, by the definition of Article 42 of the Hague Convention.
UN Security Council Resolutions 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980,
√ Deeply concerned over the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlement policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem,
UN Security Council Resolutions 497 (1981) of 17 December 1981,
√ Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void.

No representative of the Palestinian People had made a bid, on behalf of the Palestinian People, for Independence and Sovereignty through the right of self-determination without external influence prior to 1988. And only UNSC Resolution 242, speaks to "sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" issues --- but does not specifically apply them to the Arab Palestinian.

I am not sure which particular Resolution you had in mind when you say: "is past the time stated in UN resolutions." But even UNSC 242 does not specifically grant the Palestinians any special recognition. The Palestinians are not mentioned once.

Most Respectfully,
R

"No representative of the Palestinian People had made a bid, on behalf of the Palestinian People, for Independence and Sovereignty through the right of self-determination without external influence prior to 1988."

As usual, Rocco, you either don't know what you are talking about, or you are a pathological liar.

[Cmd. 1700.]
PALESTINE.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB
DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.
​

No. 1.
The Palestine Arab Delegation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.


HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.
Sir,
We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.

• 
  
  We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.

We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—

• 
  
  (a) In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; the People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
  (b) In Articles 4-9 of the Order dealing with the manner of appointment of the High Commissioner and his powers, Palestine is considered as a colony of the lowest order, whereas according to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Palestine comes under Grade A, where "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."
  
  (c) The Executive, dealt with in Articles 10-16, is in no way responsible to the Legislative Council.

• 
  (d) Articles 17-28 dealing with the Legislative Council prescribe that this Council "shall consist of 25 members in addition to the High Commissioner"—"who shall exercise a casting vote, in case of an equality of votes." This brings the total number of votes to 27. Of these, 10 shall be official members holding office under the High Commissioner, and two members shall be nominated by him. Thus the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.

It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, i.e. a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone.
Article 22 gives the High Commissioner the power at any time to prorogue or dissolve the Council, without the provision that he must call a new Council within a stated time.

Article 23 gives the High Commissioner the right to veto any measure passed by the Council.

We further submit in this connection that it is not in keeping with the constitutional spirit to place the Head of the Executive at the head of the Legislative and to introduce into this latter, as members, officials of the State. This invariably leads to the Executive becoming arbitrary since it is placed in the position of accused and judge at the same time.

We also notice with astonishment that 10 members constitute a quorum. This is less than half the total number of Members, and makes it possible for the 10 official members to carry on the work of legislation should circumstances, for any reason whatever, prevent the other members from being present. In which case the power of the Legislative Council becomes a mere shadow and not a reality.

• 
  
  (e) By the provisions of Articles 33, 46 and 67, Palestine is considered as a Crown Colony, and the High Commissioner as the Governor of a Colony or British possession with the rights of confirming sentences of death, of deporting any person without trial and without allowing that person the right of appeal against the order for deportation.
  (f) The recognition of Hebrew as an official language of the State as in Article 80 is another proof of the desire to foster Zionist nationalism in Palestine, when only about 10 per cent, of the present Jewish inhabitants of the country speak that language. This innovation is wholly unwarranted and adds to the expenses of the State, which derives its main revenues from the Arab population.
  
  (g) The High Commissioner by Article 81 is given the power to obstruct any appeal to the League of Nations.
  
  (h) Lastly, we read in Article 83 that the High Commissioner may, after obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State, vary, annul or add to the provisions of this Order in Council. These powers of the High Commissioner render this Order in Council as if it had not been.

For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—

• 
  
  (1) Safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the People.
  (2) Provide for the creation of a national independent Government in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
  
  (3) Safeguard the legal rights of foreigners.
  
  (4) Guarantee religious equality to all peoples.
  
  (5) Guarantee the rights of minorities.
  
  (6) Guarantee the rights of the Assisting Power.

The Delegation is quite confident that the justice of the British Government and its sense of fair play will make it consider the above remarks with a sympathetic mind, since the Delegation's chief object is to lay in Palestine the foundation of a stable Government that would command the respect of the inhabitants and guarantee peace and prosperity to all.
The Delegation would request, in conclusion, that the Secretary of State would be good enough to communicate to them his views on their remarks and the next step to be taken in the matter.



We have, &c.,

for THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION,

MOUSSA KAZIM EL HUSSEINI, President.

SHIBLY JAMAL, Secretary.

- See more at: UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922

So this pan arab group from all M.E. nations took control of Palestine did it. Thus showing that you cant read and have a hard time understanding what "outside influence" means

Now stop spewing LIAR at everyone that posts facts that go against your islamonazi beliefs and start looking at the evidence before your eyes. You even claim your own links are LIES when they show you are wrong.